556
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
556 points (95.9% liked)
politics
19072 readers
1852 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Can you please elaborate on that? I'm curious.
Self help author that rose to prominence on Oprah as a “spiritual advisor”, she should be viewed the same as Dr Phil, Dr Oz, and Rachel Ray
And? How does this make her a grifter? How does this make her like Donald Trump? How does this mean that she scams people like Dr Phil, Dr Oz, etc.?
I vote for people because of the policies they believe, and I think that she actually believes them, and has for a long time.
Other than Cornell West, who is running as a third party, I think Williamson is the best candidate on the ballot so far.
And I say this as a non-spiritual athiest.
Self help author. She’s a grifter. Anyone that does that shit is.
So you don't have any actual evidence that she's a grifter? Okay.
I bet you’re a big fan of Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson too
Nice strawman.
It's not a straw man because his central claim is that all self-help gurus are inherently grifters.
The straw man was him/her claiming that I must like Andrew Tate or Jordan Peterson (two people who I am not a fan of) because I like Marianne Williamson.
Being a self-help whatever doesn't mean that you are automatically a grifter, it just means that you write self-help shit.
The three people are basically inseparable in that person's mind, because OP views them all as grifters.
I know you disagree (I also disagree even though I also dislike Williamson), but the argument is fundamentally not a straw man
I was very specifically replying to that one comment.
I am aware.
You clearly didn't watch her debate performances in the 2020 primaries. She's a nut.
I watched all of them
You're not being very specific in your criticisms. What exactly did she say that makes you think she's a "nut"? I only care about policy when it comes to voting for someone, so if it isn't policy related, I very likely don't care.
Bro everything this woman says is insane lol
Well then it's a good thing that I'm voting for her because of her political beliefs and not because of her quirky self help stuff.
I am genuinely curious what political beliefs of hers you support
This is the main reason: https://marianne2024.com/economic-bill-of-rights/
That's just the Democrat platform but dumber.
I was really hoping you were gonna go with wonky new age shit.
I wish that was the Democrat platform. The Democratic Party are a bunch of neoliberal corporatists who bend to the every will of corporations (same with the Republican Party).
This is closer to what FDR (the most popular president in US history) had in mind, but never got to do, because he died.
Why did you wish that I would go with some weird new-age shit? It's not what I believe in, nor does it have anything to do with politics.
This is largely the platform of modern neoliberals, if you take away meaningless terms like a "living wage" and make it generally less dumb
Hillary Clinton was the first major modern candidate to push for universal health care, back in the 90s.
And then Hillary Clinton came out against a public option when she was running against Obama in '08. It was her husband, Bill Clinton who pushed the Democrat Party to start taking corporate and billionaire donations.
How is "living wage" a meaningless term? Right now, working a full time minimum wage job anywhere in the country is not enough to support basic essentials, such as housing, food, and utilities.
Obama said that if he was running in the '80s, he would have been considered a Republican.
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/137156-obama-says-hed-be-seen-as-moderate-republican-in-1980s/
Yeah that because Obama was also a badass neoliberal king. He also fought hard for public health care.
Not sure what your criticism here is.
And a "living wage" is a literally meaningless statement. Like, give it a dollar amount
If your dollar amount varies by locality (due to differences in cost of living) then guess what, that's also the modern neoliberal position.
Your problem is that the word neoliberal doesn't mean what you think it means, and your confusion is just born from the fact that neolibs don't intrinsically hate the wealthy.
Is that why Obamacare is a public option? Oh wait, it's not. In fact, Obamacare was an act that forced Americans to buy private health insurance, which I'm sure the private insurance companies secretly loved.
RE: Living wage
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/21/health/wages-mortality-risk/index.html
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2801679?guestAccessKey=1cdec717-ea64-4ad2-b6e7-3b2ad0f24715
Obamacare is not a public option because they couldn't get 100% of democrats to vote for that, because not all Democrats are neolibs or progressives. Some are just "less conservative" - see Manchin today.
Like, he literally televized a meeting with the Republicans who pushed "death panels" to try to rally more support. He's a President, not a king.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
Again I'm not seeing what you're missing.
As a former reddit user who was a regular on /r/neoliberal I assure you I am well versed in it.
So then you're aware that neoliberalism is a pro-capitalist idiology. Are you aware that socialism is, by definition, not pro-capitalist? Social democracy is the in-between point of socialism and capitalism, where the basic needs are covered, and the non-essentials are left to the free market to decide.
Williamson is a social democrat. Obama/Hillary are not.
I am extremely pro-capitalist.
One can be pro-capitalist and pro-social safety net. Sweden has greater wealth disparity than the US and uses the Nordic Model you're trying to claim as socialist, and which is in fact a capitalist society. I am pro-union. So is Joe Biden. So are Hillary and Bill Clinton.
Again not seeing your issue.
If you gave some stoned suburban mom the Democrat platform and told her to scrapbook it, you'd have MaryAnn Williamson
The Nordic model is social democracy, and therefore pro-capitalism. No country that I know of has implemented socialism as described by self-described Marxist economist Richard Wolff (forcing all corporations to be owned by its workers, or as we call them, worker-owned co-ops).
I am more socialist than Williamson is, but since social democracy is the furthest left idiology I can vote for, it is what I am going to vote for. If you disagree with Williamson's platform as listed on the link I posted, then we can agree to disagree.
And again on the "stoned suburban mom" point, it has nothing to do with policy, so I don't care. Attacking someone based on their "vibes" or whatever is not a path of discussion I am interested in.
If you are a capitalist who believes in a social safety net (social democracy), then cool. I got nothing wrong with that.
It literally has to do with her policy tho. It's just the same topics with dumber actual solutions than anyone else is proposing on the D side.
We can agree to disagree then. I do not think her solutions are dumb, nor do I think standard Democrats support a social democracy (which is what I consider to be the absolute bare minimum in terms of policy). I also judge Democrats based on their voting record and not what their platform says.